Pep the Muppet and Other Citeh Shit

[Niall_Quinn]

I dunno...that's a lot of description without much substance, for me. Chelsea don't win any extra points for requiring less of a push. Whether you buy your way from 4th to 1st or whether you buy you way from 20th to 1st, you're still buying shit. I think that's part of Joker's argument before - that people have some sort of preconceived notion of what teams 'should' be challenging for the title and what teams shouldn't. Even though we have been challenging for the title in recent years and are generally seen as a top team (yes, this is still the case...) it wouldn't make it any better if we did it than if Norwich did it. Sure, we'd hold on to more players than they would...we might keep Wilshere, Van Persie and a few others instead of buying a totally new team like Norwich would have to - but does that make us morally superior? (What am I saying - we are the champions of that trophy). For all the colourful words to describe a 'tasteless' Man City, they all stem from the fact that they (undeservingly) spend too much for your liking.

No, that's not it. In every competitive sport there's a certain amount of tolerance for variations in competitiveness. You get good boxers, mediocre boxers, but if a super-heavyweight was allowed to go and fight in the featherweight division the so what if he ends up being the world champ? Big deal. It's not sport, is it? It's contrived with an inevitable outcome. Same with football. Yes there are certain inequalities that seem to be built into the game these days, the big clubs who always seem to be the big clubs, the minnows. But the possibility for sport still exists and among the tops guys it's not a foregone conclusion who will win. It is now though, simply because one club has got more money than every other team in the country combined. It's just a nonsense, even if City lost 2 entire teams to injury and suspension they'd still have another world class team in reserve. So they're not subject to the normal conditions of the sport. Added to that, even if they could be challenged they can simply buy the players from their closest rivals. When money is no object you have no sport, the sport is gone. Chelsea started the rot, City have finished it off. You might say there can be 3 or 4 more Citys to come and then there will be competition at the top again. But that doesn't work either because the gap to everyone else will be immense and the money will have effectively created a separate league. In fact that's what they want to do isn't it? Abandon the league and gang up with the other moneybags clubs so they can say, this is it, this is football now and we own the lot. It's not that they spend too much money, it's that the money they spend will end up destroying a game that's lasted for over a century.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

My question is now this: If Man City were more subtle about it - perhaps more like Mourinho and Chelsea were - with less big-name signings and a much lower level of spending would they be less deserving of criticism? i.e. When your budget is £800m, and you spend £20m of it...does it make it 'right' to spend £50m instead of £700m of it? Because IMO, I'd have to go for the £700m. Aren't you eventually converging to the same outcome - that Man City keep climbing the table (at a much slower rate) - until they are no.1?

The amount of money you mention I think is somewhere around the figure the FFP rules are supposed to allow owners to invest.

It wouldn't bother me if it was that amount of investment because at least then they were acting with some sort of business sense. Obviously their turnover will be more than the money invested from somewhere else in that case and thus they wouldn't be spending at a rate that would otherwise see them collapse (and you've already admitted you agree with this). I am not against owners investing per se; it's their club. The way Sheikh Mansour is doing it hollows their achievement, not just because the amount of money they are spending but the way they have done it shows it could've been any other club. By doing it the way you suggested they would've been in a much stronger position financially (I mean through their own means).

Spending at the rate you suggest also means they wouldn't have gone a long way to raising the prices and wages of players for every other club. Man City are in no way alone in doing that but they have spent huge amounts of money on players who aren't particularly great whereas say Real Madrid have spent most of their money on the very top players but of course, I don't have much time for Real Madrid either and they do earn a huge amount.

[Marc Overmars]

I read in the paper this morning that Tevez has won a golf tournament in Argentina while he's been AWOL.

[Master Splinter]

Tevez .

[Cripps_orig]

Milan are after him

We should get him

Wont stay for more than 2 years but he'll score quite a lot during those 2 years. We only signed Park for 2 years after all and hes shit so why not do the same with Tevez whos quality?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Milan are after him

We should get him

Wont stay for more than 2 years but he'll score quite a lot during those 2 years. We only signed Park for 2 years after all and hes shit so why not do the same with Tevez whos quality?

Yeah just what we need since we seem to have divested ourselves of morale sapping self-centred *******s.

[Niall_Quinn]

Milan are after him

We should get him

Wont stay for more than 2 years but he'll score quite a lot during those 2 years. We only signed Park for 2 years after all and hes shit so why not do the same with Tevez whos quality?

Yeah because we could do with a cunt who'd rather play golf than honour his contract. The guy must really love football, yes?

[Cripps_orig]

Mancini has said he will never play for City again

Whats he supposed to do?

[Niall_Quinn]

Mancini has said he will never play for City again

Whats he supposed to do?

Who cares what he does, provided he doesn't end up anywhere near our club.

[Cripps_orig]

Quality player. We can do with as many of them as we can.

Must Get